Schrödinger’s Cat? Ninth Circuit Disrupts Trucking Industry with Contractor Misclassification Ruling

Have you heard of Schrödinger’s cat? It’s not a real cat, like Felix or Brian Setzer. It’s a hypothetical, seemingly impossible cat that exists only in the world of quantum physics. Schrödinger’s cat refers to a thought experiment in which a cat in a box is simultaneously alive and dead, until you open the box and observe the cat. Then, stubborn as cats are, it will be only one or the other, and that’s when you realize you prefer dogs anyway.

In a ruling last week, the Ninth Circuit has tried to give the trucking industry Schrödinger’s cat.

The issue was whether California’s infamous ABC Test applies to the trucking industry. The answer now is both yes and no, depending on where you look.

If you’re in California, the Ninth Circuit says yes, the ABC Test applies to the trucking industry. Under the ABC Test, now part of California’s Labor Code, most workers are classified as employees, not independent contractors, unless the work they perform is “outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.” (There’s more to the ABC Test, but that’s Part B, the hardest part to meet.)

In the trucking industry, it’s hard to argue that owner-operator truckers retained by a trucking company are performing work that is “outside the usual course” of the trucking company’s business. The ABC Test would likely reclassify most owner-operators as employees. The California Trucking Association brought a lawsuit in 2018, arguing that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) preempts this California law from being applied to trucking. The FAAAA preempts state laws “relating to a price, route or service of any motor carrier … with respect to the transportation of property.” Cal Trucking argued that applying the ABC Test and reclassifying owner-operators as employees would affect the prices, routes, and services provided.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the ABC Test is a “generally applicable” law that does not sufficiently affect prices, routes, or service to be preempted. California’s ABC Test therefore applies to trucking and is not preempted by the FAAAA.

Now remember the cat – both alive and dead?

If you’re in Massachusetts, the answer to the same question is no, the ABC Test does not apply to trucking. In 2016, the First Circuit ruled that the FAAAA preempts Massachusetts’ ABC Test (which is the same as California’s) because of its effect on prices, routes, and service, when applied to trucking.

So what happens now? How can one federal law simultaneously mean two different things?

There are three ways this can play out:

  • The full Ninth Circuit might rehear the case and could reverse its ruling (which was a 2-1 split) to conform with the First Circuit’s view;
  • The ruling might stay as it is, meaning that the interpretation of a federal law (the FAAAA) is different in California and Massachusetts, even though their state ABC Tests are the same; or
  • The Supreme Court will take the case and resolve the circuit split.

I grew up in Miami where they had greyhound racing, which you can bet on. I don’t think there’s anywhere you can go and bet on cats. But if I were a betting man on this one, I’d wager that the Supreme Court weighs in at some point.

The owner-operator model in the trucking industry is so well-established and has been permitted for so long under federal law that it seems impossible for the Supreme Court to allow the FAAAA to mean two different things in two different states.

And what about the rest of the country?

The Third and Seventh Circuits have ruled that the FAAAA does not preempt state wage and hour laws when applied to trucking, but those courts were not considering strict ABC Tests like those reviewed by the First and Ninth Circuits. The ABC Test aims to reclassify most contractors as employees; it is no ordinary wage and hour law. More states are considering adopting strict ABC Tests and, in those states, we don’t know whether the FAAAA would preempt state classification law for truckers or not.

In other words, for most of the country, the cat is both alive and dead, and we won’t know which it is until we look. Unfortunately for tens of thousands of truckers, this is not a mere thought experiment. The disruption to the industry is massive, and the sooner we get a clear answer, the better it will be for everyone. Except maybe the cat.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

Kick Back or Kickback? Using Independent Contractors in This Situation is a Felony

With summer coming, you’re probably ready to kick back, to relax. Vacation rentals invite you to kick back and relax. Meditation music invites you to kick back and relax.

But remove the little space between “kick” and “back,” and that’s not something you want at all.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully” offer, pay, solicit, or receive any remuneration to induce referrals of items or services reimbursable by Federal health care programs. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a–7b(b).

That means you cannot retain an independent contractor sales agent to refer customers to buy items or services that are reimbursable by Federal health care programs. Paying commissions or any other thing of value for these referrals is illegal. (There are some limited exceptions.)

Violations are a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison and massive fines. Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute are also automatic violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729.

The risk of prosecution is real. One recent decision upheld damages and penalties of more then $100 million against a blood testing lab that had retained independent contractor sales agents to provide referrals.

But employees can provide these referrals, even when independent contractors cannot. The Anti-Kickback Statute says it is not a violation when the remuneration is paid to an employee providing services in the course of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a–7b(b)(3)(B). To avoid violating the Anti-Kickback Statute, these sales agents should be classified as employees, not independent contractors.

There are other safe harbors too. Earlier this year, the Department of Health and Human Services adopted a new rule describing these safe harbors, but they are narrow and all conditions must be met. There is a Personal Services Arrangements Safe Harbor that, under some circumstances, will permit payments to an independent contractor agent. You can read more about the new rule here.

Tread very carefully. The penalties for violating the Anti-Kickback Statute are serious. But if you get it right, maybe you can kick back and relax after all.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 

A Million Dollar Bill? Be Careful Before Relying on the Direct Seller Exemption for Contractor Status

All this cash is available on Amazon for just $13.67!

A Tennessee woman was recently busted for trying to use a $1 million bill to buy a cartful of personal items at a dollar store. The clerk reported the woman to Blount County police, who issued a no trespass order.

That really had no chance of working. Did the woman really think the register at a dollar store had $999,900 or so in change? She did not think that one through too carefully.

Thinking things through is important in all walks of life, including when classifying sales personnel as contractors or employees.

You may have heard that the Internal Revenue Service treats a “direct seller” as an independent contractor, not an employee. But don’t assume all directs sellers are contractors, not employees. Here are two important notes of caution:

First, the definition of “direct seller” is narrow. Here’s what it means, according to IRS Guidance on Direct Sellers:

Direct sellers include any of the following:

  • A person who sells consumer products in the home or a place of business other than a permanent retail establishment,
  • A person who sells consumer products on a deposit or commission basis, or to other persons who will sell the products in the home or place of business,
  • A person who delivers and/or distributes newspapers or shopping guides.

Direct sellers have certain things in common. Their compensation is related to sales rather than to the number of hours worked. Services are performed under a written contract between the seller and the person for whom the seller performs the services.

And the contracts involved provide that sellers are not treated as employees for federal tax purposes.

But wait, there’s more. The Internal Revenue Code also requires, for someone to be a “direct seller,” that:

(B) substantially all the remuneration (whether or not paid in cash) for the performance of the services described in subparagraph (A) is directly related to sales or other output (including the performance of services) rather than to the number of hours worked, and

(C) the services performed by the person are performed pursuant to a written contract between such person and the person for whom the services are performed and such contract provides that the person will not be treated as an employee with respect to such services for Federal tax purposes.

The full statute is here. Further IRS Guidance can be found here.

Second, even if someone is a “direct seller” under the Internal Revenue Code, that doesn’t mean they’re automatically independent contractors under other laws, including federal wage and hour laws state laws.

For example, the FLSA says that “outside sales” professionals are exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements, but the requirements are different. DOL Fact Sheet #17 explains this exemption.

California’s ABC Test does not apply to “direct salespersons,” but only if those individuals meet the test in California’s unemployment law. Other states have different rules for sellers.

The bottom line when classifying direct sellers is to remember that different tests apply to different laws. Be thorough, and remember that a worker’s classification may be different under federal tax law than under wage and hour law or state law. You’ve got to think this all the way through.

Getting it wrong can be costly, especially for businesses that use lots of independent contractors, and — most important — novelty U.S. currency like million-dollar bills won’t cover those penalties or litigation damages. But, according to the seller of these bills on Amazon, these are the “million dollar bills that get the WOW response.” So there’s that.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

2018_Web100Badge
 

Managing a Large Contingent Workforce: What are MSP, VMS, and FMS?

When something important has to get done, you’ll do whatever it takes. And you’re not alone. This ten-year old, for example, stole his parents’ car to drive to the grocery store to buy Cheerios when he found they had run out at home.

I’d start hiding the car keys. There are better ways to replenish the Cheerios.

Replenishing your workforce can be a tougher job. When building a contingent workforce management program, there are lots of options and lots of acronyms.

Here’s a high level cheat sheet of the key options, along with the acronyms you’ll hear:

MSP = Managed Service Provider.  Third party that oversees the selection of service providers. An MSP negotiates contracts with staffing agencies and works with suppliers, usually not working directly with individual talent. Uses VMS, possibly FMS.

VMS = Vendor Management System.  Web-based application that allows organization to secure and manage staffing services on a temporary, permanent, or contract basis. Features include job requisitions and staff ordering. Centralizes and handles the administrative process of multiple vendors for invoicing and payments.

FMS = Freelance Management System.  Technology platform used to match opportunities with talent. May include a talent pool; may include public marketplace and a private talent pool. Helps ICs find opportunities.

VOP = Vendor on premise. Preferred staffing agency, onsite.

Your company can use a VMS directly or can retain an MSP (which will use its own VMS) to manage the talent acquisition process. Here’s my weak attempt at a flow chart:

          MSP

        /       \

     VMS    FMS   

       |            |

Staffing       ICs

Agencies

     |

Temps, ICs

Here’s what I’m trying to show: If you retain an MSP, the MSP will likely use a VMS to work with staffing agencies, and the staffing agency will identify temps or ICs. Or, the MSP may use a FSP to directly retain ICs.

If you do not retain an MSP, you can handle the talent search process in house, using a VMS to oversee the relationship with staffing agencies, who will procure temps or ICs. Or you can use a FMS to match qualified ICs with your project-based needs.

This is a vast oversimplification, but hopefully it’s helpful at a high level. Best wishes for a terrific week, and don’t forget to maintain an adequate supply of Cheerios.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

2018_Web100Badge
 

Island Politics: Which States Are Considering New ABC Tests?

On Victoria Island in Northern Canada there is a series of long finger lakes. In one of the lakes there’s an island. Inside that smaller island, there’s a smaller lake, which contains a still smaller island about a fifth of a mile long. It is the largest known island in a lake on an island in a lake on an island. You can see it here.

I like maps and islands. I like exclaves and enclaves and have lots of questions about islands.

One of my questions is why Rhode Island came to be called that, since it’s not an island. This was particularly confusing to me in elementary school but I have come to terms with it and no longer lose sleep over this.

But now Rhode Island is causing me to lose sleep again.

Why? ABC Tests.

There are bills pending in both Rhode Island and New York that, if passed, would adopt strict ABC Tests for determining who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. The tests would follow the California AB 5/Dynamex model and the Massachusetts model, meaning that a worker providing services would automatically be classified as an employee unless (all 3):

(A) the individual is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for performance of the work and in fact;

(B) the individual performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and

(C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

As discussed here, Part B is the killer B, the destroyer of most independent contractor relationships.

The bills have not yet passed either house, but both have popular support among legislatures that are heavily Democratic. Both bills seem to have a good chance at passing in 2021.

Keep an eye on these bills.

Meanwhile, Victoria Island is the eighth largest island in the world but has only about 2,100 people. I am not aware of any push among the mostly-Inuit inhabitants to reclassify independent contractors anywhere in Nunavut, but I also don’t feel like I have my finger on the pulse of Nunavut politics. It’s harder to track legislation there.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

2018_Web100Badge
 

West Virginia Adopts Pro-Business Independent Contractor Test

Three Fun Facts about West Virginia:

  1. The New River is actually one of the world’s oldest rivers and, unusually, flows south to north.
  2. The nickname and team mascot for Poca High School in Poca, WV is the Dots.
  3. West Virginia just adopted the most pro-business worker classification test in the nation.

While I would love to write about the Poca Dots, I’m going to focus on the state’s new worker classification test, enacted March 11, 2021. It takes effect 90 days later, on June 9, 2021.

The new test creates a safe harbor. If you comply with a list of requirements, including a written contract, your worker is automatically an independent contractor under WV wage and hour law, anti-discrimination law, workers’ compensation, and unemployment.

The bill nearly had a disastrous flaw. In its original form, passed by one chamber, if you failed to meet the safe harbor criteria, you’d automatically be deemed an employee. That would have had absurd unintended consequences, including that a worker would automatically be an employee if there was no written contract or if the contract did not include all required clauses.

I drafted a last-minute amendment that was adopted and inserted into the bill at the eleventh hour. The amendment said that if the safe harbor was not met, the worker would not automatically be an employee. Instead, the worker’s status would determined by using the 20-factor Right to Control Test in IRS Rev. Ruling 87-41. (The 20 factors are explained here in this PDF from the Texas Workforce Commission.)

The bill is very pro-business.

Businesses retaining contractors in WV should review the safe harbor provisions and be sure to comply. Compliance means a free pass for independent contractor status under state law (but not under federal law). Contracts may need to be adjusted to include the required clauses. Now is the time to do that.

Here is a link to the bill. The blue text contains the safe harbor. Read it closely and make sure these provisions are in your WV independent contractor agreements.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

2018_Web100Badge
 

Who WAS My Employee? Companies Must Provide This Notice to Former Employees By May 31.

Please hold. The past is calling. Source: LOC

This weekend I watched The Call, a South Korean horror film (yes, subtitles) about a woman who receives a call from 20 years earlier. The past and present keep changing as the two callers interact over time. Oddly there were two movies released in 2020 named The Call. It’s this one.

The past can affect the present, but not usually the way it did in the movie.

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) imposes new COBRA-related obligations on employers, including notice requirements to former employees. In this blog, we usually ask Who Is My Employee?, but this week’s post is about Who Was My Employee?

ARPA changes the COBRA rules for April 1 through September 30, 2021. Employees who are involuntary terminated or become COBRA-eligible due to a reduction in hours are entitled to a 100% subsidy on their COBRA premiums for six months, April 1 to September 30. The company must pay the premiums, which are then reimbursed by the government through payroll tax credits.

ARPA extends this subsidy opportunity to former employees too, even those who did not sign up for COBRA when they were terminated. Under ARPA, those individuals get a second chance to sign up if they became COBRA-eligible less than 18 months ago.

Employers must send new COBRA notices to individuals who were involuntarily terminated (or who became COBRA-eligible due to a reduction in hours) within the last 18 months, including those who did not choose coverage at the time. These individuals can take advantage of the subsidized premiums from April through September, unless their 18-month COBRA eligibility period ends earlier or they become ineligible for another reason. Eligibility ends if the individual becomes eligible for other healthcare coverage or Medicare.

The DOL will be publishing model notices by April 10.

Employers must send this notice by May 31.

There’s more that employers need to know about changes to COBRA. The changes mean that your template severance agreements probably need to be revised too. There are new COBRA notice requirements for departing employees and new notices that must be sent when the subsidies are about to end.

I drafted a post addressing these subjects for BakerHostetler’s Employment Law Spotlight blog, which you can read here.

Reaching back 18 months to send notices to departed employees is an unusual requirement, but employers will have to make reasonable efforts to track these people down. Fortunately, unlike in The Call, employers don’t need to worry about anything that happened 20 years ago. The 18-month lookback is plenty to worry about.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

Use a Sea Slug’s Secret Superpower When Drafting IC Arbitration Clauses

Witness: The severed head of a sea slug. Image by Sakaya Mitoh, who performed this awesome experiment.

Did you know that sea slugs have superpowers?

According to researchers at the Nara Women’s University in Japan, if you sever the head of a certain type of slug, the slug can grow a new body, organs and all. I like that as the basis for a new Marvel character. Or maybe the slug is a distant cousin to Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner.

The moral of the story is that when a slug loses its head, all is not lost. (This is how sea slugs survived the French revolution.) The same may be true in the context of arbitration agreements for independent contractors. (Come on, that’s a really good segue, isn’t it?)

For independent contractors in the transportation industry, arbitration agreements may be unenforceable under federal law. But all is not lost. In some states, state arbitration law can save the day. That means it’s important to know your state laws and to draft choice of law clauses carefully.

Here’s what I mean:

For companies that work extensively with independent contractors, there are lots of good reasons to require that disputes are resolved in arbitration, not in court. One of the biggest advantages of arbitration is the ability to include a class action waiver, requiring any claimant to bring a case on an individual basis only. No class actions. Class claims are the sexiest of all claims to plaintiff’s lawyers. Individual claims are not nearly as lucrative. Or sexy.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) embraces arbitration as an enforceable way to resolve disputes. But there’s a big exception to the FAA. It doesn’t apply to transportation workers “engaged in … interstate commerce.” The meaning of that phrase is unclear, and there are lots of lawyers fighting about its scope. Different courts have come to different conclusions, especially regarding last mile delivery drivers and rideshare. Eventually, the Supreme Court is likely to rule on exactly what this phrase means.

But in the meantime, what if your contractors are arguably “engaged in … interstate commerce”? Are you stuck with a lengthy legal battle over whether your arbitration agreement is enforceable under the FAA?

Not necessarily. Don’t forget about state law. Several states have their own laws embracing arbitration as an enforceable way to resolve disputes, and these state laws generally do not have exceptions for transportation workers.

New York is a good example. Courts in New York have upheld arbitration agreements, even when the workers were arguably transportation workers not covered by the FAA.

Choose your state law carefully, especially if your arbitration agreement might be subject to the FAA’s exception for transportation workers. It’s common to include a “choice of law” clause in contracts, but those clauses are often dropped into contracts without anyone thinking about why a certain state’s law should apply. Those clauses really do matter, and the choice of law section should be carefully considered.

When it comes to arbitration agreements, the choice of law clauses should not be viewed as a boilerplate clause to toss in without careful thought.

The ability to choose a particular state’s law is a real superpower. Use it like a sea slug!

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

Macaques & The Guess Who: Why the New Independent Contractor Rule Won’t Take Effect March 8

Photo by Hectonichus and, yes, this fella is sticking his tongue out at you (but he can’t remember why).

A Swedish study concluded that baboons, pig-tailed macaques, and squirrel monkeys have some of the worst short-term memories in the animal kingdom, barely exceeding that of bees. The point is, never ask a pig-tailed macaque where you left your car keys.

Having a short memory can be a problem in some situations, but not it’s not an issue if you’re just trying to recall the latest Department of Labor test for independent contractor misclassification. Everything you recall from six weeks ago is being undone anyway. (Or Undun, if you’re a fan of the spelling-impaired Canadian band The Guess Who.)

Remember the new rule issued by the DOL in January 2021 for determining employee vs. independent contractor status? It was going to modify the Economic Realities Test to focus on two core factors: (1) the nature and degree of the worker’s control over the work, and (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on personal initiative or investment. The new rule was to take effect March 8. The test would apply only to claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

No more. Last week, the DOL delayed implementation until May, but the rule most likely will be rescinded completely. Undun.

This decision comes on the heels of the DOL rescinding two opinion letters that were also issued in January. Undun. The letters provided guidance on determining independent contractor status in a few particular situations.

The Economic Realities Test remains the test used to determine who is an employee under the FLSA. It’s a multi-factor balancing test.

So if you’ve been relying on recent DOL guidance for how to apply that test, channel your inner pig-tailed macaque. Whatever you recall from January can be forgotten. And where did I put my car keys?

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

(Just Like) Starting Over: Biden Salutes John Lennon on Joint Employer Policy

The 1980 Double Fantasy album is meh, featuring alternating tracks by John Lennon and Yoko Ono. But there’s at least on gem on that album, and it’s the very first track: “(Just Like) Starting Over.” The song was originally titled “Starting Over” but the parenthetical was a late addition, reportedly inserted to make sure listeners knew this wasn’t Dolly Parton’s country music chart topper from the same year, “Starting Over Again.” Not that anyone has ever confused John Lennon with Dolly Parton, but I get it.

President Biden’s policy on joint employment is already embracing the same theme, even before Marty Walsh gets confirmed as Secretary of Labor. The DOL ain’t wastin time no more. (And speaking of the Allman Brothers, if you haven’t yet seen the documentary Jimmy Carter: Rock N’ Roll President, it’s worth 96 minutes of your time.)

Late last week, the DOL announced it has submitted a new proposed rule for determining joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The text of the proposed rule has not yet been released, but here’s what we know:

1. The new rule would replace the regulations enacted by the Trump DOL in March 2020. The March 2020 regulation required actual control for a finding of joint employment and focused the joint employer analysis on four factors — right to hire/fire, supervision of work conditions or schedules, rate/method of pay, and control of personnel files. That test made it tougher to establish joint employment.

The March 2020 regulations are already the subject of litigation, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case to decide whether the new rules are valid. That means the March 2020 rule could be on the chopping block no matter, with either the Second Circuit or the Biden DOL doing the chopping.

2. The new rule will be (just like) starting over. It will re-adopt an Obama-era joint employment test. But which one?

Option A:

Before the March 2020 rule requiring actual control, all that was need to be a joint employer was the right to control certain aspects of the relationship.

When using a staffing agency for staff augmentation, for example, there was a pretty high likelihood that would be joint employment, even if the staffing agency had exclusive control over the four factors highlighted in the March 2020 test — setting wages, setting schedules, controlling pay, and maintaining personnel files. At a minimum, the new rule will go back to that standard.

Option B:

But there’s a worse option that could be in the cards. Five states are bound by a 2017 federal appeals ruling that adopts a much broader interpretation of joint employment. In a case called Salinas, the Fourth Circuit ruled that two businesses are joint employers unless they are “completely disassociated” from one another. The Fourth Circuit covers MD, NC, SC, VA, and WV. That decision suggests that every borrowed labor situation might automatically be joint employment, since the two companies have a contractual “association” with each other.

The Salinas decision was based on an old regulation, on the books since 1958, that the March 2020 regulation eliminated and replaced.

Which version of joint employment will the new Biden rule seek to adopt? Or will the DOL come up with a new test entirely?

Either way, we know that the test for joint employment will change in 2021 or 22, and the new rule will make it much more likely that staffing agency relationships and other borrowed labor arrangements create joint employment.

While the specifics of the new test are not yet known, we know enough already to start to plan. Staffing agency agreements should be checked and revised to protect against joint employment liability. This post provides a few of my favorite tips.

There are plenty of steps that can be taken to protect against joint employment, so long as businesses plan ahead and draft their contracts carefully. Change is coming, but we’ve been down this road before. It’s (just like) starting over.

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Sign up now for the BakerHostetler 2021 Master Class on The State of Labor Relations and Employment Law. Twelve sessions, one hour every Tuesday, 2 pm ET, all virtual, no cost. Click here for more information. List me as your BakerHostetler contact so I know you’ve registered. 

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 
2018_Web100Badge